News Lasseter taking leave of absence

[the.dreamfinder]

Probably not without penalty, such as forfeiting whatever settlement payment she agreed to.

That hasn’t stopped Harvey’s victims from breaking their gag orders.

 

[Pixieish]

Probably not without penalty, such as forfeiting whatever settlement payment she agreed to.

That hasn’t stopped Harvey’s victims from breaking their gag orders.

I wonder if courts got involved if they could still hold people to NDAs...

EDIT: I'm just wondering in general...not necessarily about Lasseter's case.

 

[LAKid53]

I wonder if courts got involved if they could still hold people to NDAs...

EDIT: I'm just wondering in general...not necessarily about Lasseter's case.

It's a contract. The general legal requirements for a court to overturn or invalidate an NDA would have to apply, i.e., anything that makes it void or voidable.

@Weather_Lady, would there ever be an instance where a court would want to review a settlement agreement agreed to by both parties prior to approving a motion to dismiss by the complaintant?

 

[SorcererMC]

For the sake of argument, let's look at John Lasseter's memos, which I quoted bellow.

"I have always wanted our animation studios to be places where creators can explore their vision with the support and collaboration of other gifted animators and storytellers. This kind of creative culture takes constant vigilance to maintain. It’s built on trust and respect, and it becomes fragile if any members of the team don’t feel valued. As a leader, it’s my responsibility to ensure that doesn’t happen; and I now believe I have been falling short in this regard.

I’ve recently had a number of difficult conversations that have been very painful for me. It’s never easy to face your missteps, but it’s the only way to learn from them. As a result, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the leader I am today compared to the mentor, advocate and champion I want to be. It’s been brought to my attention that I have made some of you feel disrespected or uncomfortable. That was never my intent. Collectively, you mean the world to me, and I deeply apologize if I have let you down. I especially want to apologize to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of an unwanted hug or any other gesture they felt crossed the line in any way, shape, or form. No matter how benign my intent, everyone has the right to set their own boundaries and have them respected.

In my conversations with Disney, we are united in our commitment to always treat any concerns you have with the seriousness they deserve, and to address them in an appropriate manner. We also share a desire to reinforce the vibrant, respectful culture that has been the foundation of our studios’ success since the beginning. And we agree the first step in that direction is for me to take some time away to reflect on how to move forward from here. As hard as it is for me to step away from a job I am so passionate about and a team I hold in the highest regard, not just as artists but as people, I know it’s the best thing for all of us right now. My hope is that a six-month sabbatical will give me the opportunity to start taking better care of myself, to recharge and be inspired, and ultimately return with the insight and perspective I need to be the leader you deserve.

I’m immensely proud of this team, and I know you will continue to wow the world in my absence. I wish you all a wonderful holiday season and look forward to working together again in the new year.

John"

Quoting Lasseter's statement for reference. And I want to draw attention to the fact that the second paragraph of this statement is focused on what a painful process this has been for him, and distances himself from his own behavior by saying 'It's been brought to my attention that I have made some of you feel disrespected or uncomfortable'.
This is a non-apology - he's not sorry for what he did (whatever 'gesture' it was), he's 'sorry if you felt that way'.

No one has gone on the record to recount their experiences with John yet. That could certainly change and if that happens, the response will be different.

In the absence of anyone going on the record re: Lasseter's behavior, it seems that people are inclined to take Lasseter's statement at face value, that he'll be fit to return as their leader in 6 months. As well as the media narrative that he's difficult to replace.
Why would anyone at the company knowledgeable of Lasseter's behavior come forward? In the third paragraph of his statement, 'united with Disney' means he would have a role in addressing anyone's concerns moving forward.....

Lasseter's statement serves to quash any more controversy that may arise....Disney's statement is effectively 'Lasseter sabbatical = problem solved'. It looks like they are all banking on this quietly going away and I wouldn't mind it at all at this point if Iger & team's attempts to manage this backfires. Not because I want to see TWDC suffer for Lasseter's misdeeds; rather, true leaders value accountability, and current public statements seem inadequate IMO.
I'm grateful to those here who have indicated that there is more at play and that he is, indeed, fired.

This isn’t even getting into how he gave a wink and a nod to Ed Catmull to work with other studios to help keep workers wages down and other unethical business practices.

Funny you mention that because this New Yorker article about discrimination in the tech industry says "sexual harassment is a tipoff that other misconduct may be taking place at a company".

 

[SorcererMC]

Doesn't sound at all like the big, lovable, goofy nerd we thought he was.

If one considers sexual harassment to fall into the category of verbal or emotional abuse, it makes more sense that his public persona is different from his private one, that he would tailor his image according to his audience and be adept at manipulating appearances.

 

[AEfx]

You could say the same thing about Harvey Weinstein. Only film fans and awards watchers know who he is.

To a *much* lesser extent, though. I find it tough to even compare them.

Weinstein was a celebrity in his own right. He made sure of it. That's why we have all these now creepy pictures of him next to everyone he ever got an Oscar for. He's always appeared in celebrity magazines, he was always a topic of discussion on talk shows when a star is on promoting their Miramax/Weinstein Company film. He was always the center of everything (premieres, the Oscars, etc.) outside of the actual films themselves, and even then his name was in big bold all by itself as "Executive Producer" (the size of which is contractually much more prominent in live action versus animation). He was a big, loud, memorable guy with a larger than life personality who was always draped in the most famous and glamorous women of Hollywood.

I mean, let google do the work for us. Type Harvey Weinstein. 70 million hits. Lasseter? 2 million.

Then go over to "images". Scroll down. In most of the top hits, Lasseter just looks like some suburban dad who seems to like goofy shirts. I honestly could not picture him in my head until I just went to look. There are a few random pics of him with some Toy Story toys in his hand, but other than that there is like one pic of him with George Lucas and one with Owen Wilson.

Now go back to Harvey and scroll down the same. Pictures of him at fancy cocktail parties boozing it up with Madonna, Gwyneth, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, Hillary Clinton, Gwyneth, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Gwyneth (man, that woman seems like his biggest fan, she is constantly fawning all over him in public...) - you get the drift. These are all pictures that every InStyle or People magazine reader in America has seen regularly for twenty-five years.


They just aren't even in the same league when it comes to the public knowing about them. Even if more salacious stuff comes out, it will get reported on, and then kinda disappear, like it already has. I didn't see one person on my FB feed repost a story about him, yet I've seen virtually every other person accused many times over.

Even being involved with Disney/Piixar hasn't caught people, because those are animated movies made by "Disney" or "Pixar" - I honestly think most people don't think about the people behind them aside from the celebrity voices. In their heads they can picture a live action movie set, with actors and grips and directors and a producer standing over the shoulder, but animation is just perceived so differently, mechanically, that it just doesn't resonate or have much impact with folks.

I know to some Disney fans he might as well have been Walt 2.0, but in the celebrity culture, he practically is one step up from nobody to all but the D23 crowd.

I wonder if courts got involved if they could still hold people to NDAs...

EDIT: I'm just wondering in general...not necessarily about Lasseter's case.

NDA's don't just automatically kick in - they would have to be sued by the party they signed the NDA with for breech of contract. Presumably, most are banking on the public outcry keeping that from happening.

 

[Pixieish]

To a *much* lesser extent, though. I find it tough to even compare them.

Weinstein was a celebrity in his own right. He made sure of it. That's why we have all these now creepy pictures of him next to everyone he ever got an Oscar for. He's always appeared in celebrity magazines, he was always a topic of discussion on talk shows when a star is on promoting their Miramax/Weinstein Company film. He was always the center of everything (premieres, the Oscars, etc.) outside of the actual films themselves, and even then his name was in big bold all by itself as "Executive Producer" (the size of which is contractually much more prominent in live action versus animation). He was a big, loud, memorable guy with a larger than life personality who was always draped in the most famous and glamorous women of Hollywood.

I mean, let google do the work for us. Type Harvey Weinstein. 70 million hits. Lasseter? 2 million.

Then go over to "images". Scroll down. In most of the top hits, Lasseter just looks like some suburban dad who seems to like goofy shirts. I honestly could not picture him in my head until I just went to look. There are a few random pics of him with some Toy Story toys in his hand, but other than that there is like one pic of him with George Lucas and one with Owen Wilson.

Now go back to Harvey and scroll down the same. Pictures of him at fancy cocktail parties boozing it up with Madonna, Gwyneth, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, Hillary Clinton, Gwyneth, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Gwyneth (man, that woman seems like his biggest fan, she is constantly fawning all over him in public...) - you get the drift. These are all pictures that every InStyle or People magazine reader in America has seen regularly for twenty-five years.


They just aren't even in the same league when it comes to the public knowing about them. Even if more salacious stuff comes out, it will get reported on, and then kinda disappear, like it already has. I didn't see one person on my FB feed repost a story about him, yet I've seen virtually every other person accused many times over.

I know to some Disney fans he might as well have been Walt 2.0, but in the celebrity culture, he practically is one step up from nobody to all but the D23 crowd.

Even being involved with Disney/Piixar hasn't caught people, because those are animated movies made by "Disney" or "Pixar" - I honestly think most people don't think about the people behind them aside from the celebrity voices. In their heads they can picture a live action movie set, with actors and grips and directors and a producer standing over the shoulder, but animation is just perceived so differently, mechanically, that it just doesn't resonate or have much impact with folks.




NDA's don't just automatically kick in - they would have to be sued by the party they signed the NDA with for breech of contract. Presumably, most are banking on the public outcry keeping that from happening.

So, basically if someone were subpoenaed and broke the NDA as a result of that subpoena, they run the risk of being sued by the party they signed the NDA with? Or would the fact that they've been subpoenaed protect them from that?

 

[AEfx]

So, basically if someone were subpoenaed and broke the NDA as a result of that subpoena, they run the risk of being sued by the party they signed the NDA with? Or would the fact that they've been subpoenaed protect them from that?

That is beyond my knowledge...maybe someone else can tackle that. I just know that when it comes to people talking out in interviews and such with journalists, or social media, they are definitely breaking the NDA - they are pretty iron clad in those cases. But they would have to be sued just like any other broken contract that needs to be enforced.

 

[LAKid53]

If one considers sexual harassment to fall into the category of verbal or emotional abuse, it makes more sense that his public persona is different from his private one, that he would tailor his image according to his audience and be adept at manipulating appearances.

As all abusers are very adept at doing.

 

[LAKid53]

So, basically if someone were subpoenaed and broke the NDA as a result of that subpoena, they run the risk of being sued by the party they signed the NDA with? Or would the fact that they've been subpoenaed protect them from that?

I'm sure the subpoenaed individual's attorney would file motions to restrict what a complaintant's attorney could ask, both in deposition and on the stand. And the attorney for the other party to the NDA might to the same. But an interesting legal conundrum.

 

[Pixieish]

I'm sure the subpoenaed individual's attorney would file motions to restrict what a complaintant's attorney could ask, both in deposition and on the stand. And the attorney for the other party to the NDA might to the same. But an interesting legal conundrum.

EXACTLY. Especially for the the most severe cases.

 

[LAKid53]

EXACTLY. Especially for the the most severe cases.

There would need to be compelling reasons for the parties and/or court to agree to set aside an NDA. And it's probably going to be the court that makes that decision.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Keep in mind there are two types of NDAs:

1. As part of the contract of working for an employer, there may be an NDA clause to keep confidential company secrets and, here's the kicker, never to say anything publicly to disparage your employer; and,

2. As part of a settlement in lieu of suing your employer who did something bad to you, the contract of the settlement says you get a certain amount of money in compensation for your troubles, but, you have to promise not to sue your employer and, here's the kicker, never to reveal the details of this settlement.​

Now, if you employer did something illegal -- breaking the civil criminal code in the way you were mistreated -- then you can report that to the authorities. However, if you settled out of court with a contract, as in case #2, then the DA and the courts may consider the matter settled and not pursue precisely because you settled out of court, unless they can find other victims who didn't settle out of court. And the NDAs may still restrict you from speaking publicly about it.

The thing to do if you ever settle out of court is demand the company punish the perpetrator in some way as part of the settlement, otherwise you're going to sue them. This way, if the company doesn't punish the perpetrator which enables them to hurt others, then the company is in violation of the settlement and you can blow the whistle on them.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/we-did-not-know

 

[Pixieish]

Keep in mind there are two types of NDAs:

1. As part of the contract of working for an employer, there may be an NDA clause to keep confidential company secrets and, here's the kicker, never to say anything publicly to disparage your employer; and,

2. As part of a settlement in lieu of suing your employer who did something bad to you, the contract of the settlement says you get a certain amount of money in compensation for your troubles, but, you have to promise not to sue your employer and, here's the kicker, never to reveal the details of this settlement.​

Now, if you employer did something illegal -- breaking the civil criminal code in the way you were mistreated -- then you can report that to the authorities. However, if you settled out of court with a contract, as in case #2, then the DA and the courts may consider the matter settled and not pursue precisely because you settled out of court, unless they can find other victims who didn't settle out of court. And the NDAs may still restrict you from speaking publicly about it.

The thing to do if you ever settle out of court is demand the company punish the perpetrator in some way as part of the settlement, otherwise you're going to sue them. This way, if the company doesn't punish the perpetrator which enables them to hurt others, then the company is in violation of the settlement and you can blow the whistle on them.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/we-did-not-know

Thank you for the clarification!

Funny thing is that one of my previous employers had an NDA that they "called" a non-compete agreement. They included verbiage about badmouthing the company, but then screwed up and set the terms to last only 5 years. They claimed that only applied not seeking a job within the industry within a certain mileage of them, but the wording was loose enough that there was a huge loophole. (Also, they were total scumbags and would try to force us to knowingly produce shoddy product and they also chewed people up and spit them out.)

 

[LAKid53]

Keep in mind there are two types of NDAs:

1. As part of the contract of working for an employer, there may be an NDA clause to keep confidential company secrets and, here's the kicker, never to say anything publicly to disparage your employer; and,

2. As part of a settlement in lieu of suing your employer who did something bad to you, the contract of the settlement says you get a certain amount of money in compensation for your troubles, but, you have to promise not to sue your employer and, here's the kicker, never to reveal the details of this settlement.​

Now, if you employer did something illegal -- breaking the civil criminal code in the way you were mistreated -- then you can report that to the authorities. However, if you settled out of court with a contract, as in case #2, then the DA and the courts may consider the matter settled and not pursue precisely because you settled out of court, unless they can find other victims who didn't settle out of court. And the NDAs may still restrict you from speaking publicly about it.

The thing to do if you ever settle out of court is demand the company punish the perpetrator in some way as part of the settlement, otherwise you're going to sue them. This way, if the company doesn't punish the perpetrator which enables them to hurt others, then the company is in violation of the settlement and you can blow the whistle on them.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/we-did-not-know

I would think though, if compelling reasons exist to do so, either a lawyer (civil) or DA (criminal) might ask the court to lift the restriction on discussing some of the details of the settlement agreement to do nothing more than corroborate other witness testimony.

With both the NYPD and Manhattan DA considering arresting and charging Harvey Weinstein with rape, those NDAs signed by his victims may be set aside in some instances.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Quoting Lasseter's statement for reference. And I want to draw attention to the fact that the second paragraph of this statement is focused on what a painful process this has been for him, and distances himself from his own behavior by saying 'It's been brought to my attention that I have made some of you feel disrespected or uncomfortable'.
This is a non-apology - he's not sorry for what he did (whatever 'gesture' it was), he's 'sorry if you felt that way'.

That's a great observation and an equally great way of summing it all up. You seem to have a better grasp of the memo than pretty much anyone else.

 

[Pixieish]

Quoting Lasseter's statement for reference. And I want to draw attention to the fact that the second paragraph of this statement is focused on what a painful process this has been for him, and distances himself from his own behavior by saying 'It's been brought to my attention that I have made some of you feel disrespected or uncomfortable'.
This is a non-apology - he's not sorry for what he did (whatever 'gesture' it was), he's 'sorry if you felt that way'.



In the absence of anyone going on the record re: Lasseter's behavior, it seems that people are inclined to take Lasseter's statement at face value, that he'll be fit to return as their leader in 6 months. As well as the media narrative that he's difficult to replace.
Why would anyone at the company knowledgeable of Lasseter's behavior come forward? In the third paragraph of his statement, 'united with Disney' means he would have a role in addressing anyone's concerns moving forward.....

Lasseter's statement serves to quash any more controversy that may arise....Disney's statement is effectively 'Lasseter sabbatical = problem solved'. It looks like they are all banking on this quietly going away and I wouldn't mind it at all at this point if Iger & team's attempts to manage this backfires. Not because I want to see TWDC suffer for Lasseter's misdeeds; rather, true leaders value accountability, and current public statements seem inadequate IMO.
I'm grateful to those here who have indicated that there is more at play and that he is, indeed, fired.



Funny you mention that because this New Yorker article about discrimination in the tech industry says "sexual harassment is a tipoff that other misconduct may be taking place at a company".

That's a great observation and an equally great way of summing it all up. You seem to have a better grasp of the memo than pretty much anyone else.

It's also textbook behavior for abusers to try to turn things around on their victims.

 

[LAKid53]

That's a great observation and an equally great way of summing it all up. You seem to have a better grasp of the memo than pretty much anyone else.

I repeat what I previously posted. That memo was written by Disney legal to prevent liability on the part of Iger, other execs and the BoD. Say your sorry (but not really), deflect to the perception of others and, in essence, not really admit to much. Thus, potential litigants can't use it against you or the company (unlike someone's tweets).

But I agree with Spirit, John's not coming back.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I would think though, if compelling reasons exist to do so, either a lawyer (civil) or DA (criminal) might ask the court to lift the restriction on discussing some of the details of the settlement agreement to do nothing more than corroborate other witness testimony.

With both the NYPD and Manhattan DA considering arresting and charging Harvey Weinstein with rape, those NDAs signed by his victims may be set aside in some instances.

True. While DAs/courts can consider the matter settled, they don't have to, and they can pursue for the sake of public safety. Or, pursue on behalf of those who didn't settle.

If the DAs/courts try to compel those who settled with an NDA to give corroborating testimony, then the perpetrator or their company (Weinstein) can file motions to block that testimony. Then it's up to a judge to decide what to do. The testimony could be given but sealed, protecting the one testifying from retribution by the perpetrator for violating the NDA. And if the perpetrator sues someone for complying with a subpoena, then it's up to a jury whether to hold the one who 'broke' the NDA responsible or not (they probably wouldn't).

From the reading I've done, the law isn't settled and a lot of it falls under a patchwork of state laws.

 

[SorcererMC]

That's a great observation and an equally great way of summing it all up. You seem to have a better grasp of the memo than pretty much anyone else.

I'm not a lawyer but I have some experience in emergency mgmt./ communications, drafting and interpreting policy, etc.
Others may interpret differently.

I repeat what I previously posted. That memo was written by Disney legal to prevent liability on the part of Iger, other execs and the BoD. Say your sorry (but not really), deflect to the perception of others and, in essence, not really admit to much. Thus, potential litigants can't use it against you or the company (unlike someone's tweets).

I agree that the memo is well-crafted and accomplishes those objectives of protecting Iger and the company, but I disagree that it was wholly dictated by Disney legal. As others have said, I suspect that Lasseter has some leverage here - based on the third paragraph statement starting with "as hard as it is for me to step away...." and declaring his intent to return to his leadership role.
This strikes me as unusual and would not be there unless Lasseter has legal room to maneuver; it signals that he is challenging or will challenge whatever steps TWDC may be taking against him. ETA: It could also mean that he is challenging the harassment accusation...it's not sexual harassment if Lasseter's behavior was welcomed (even within the workplace environment).